The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-19

subject to the right of entry by landlords for
the purpose of building upon or otherwise I'M
proving such holdings. He added that, although
the government was somewhat in a 'hx," they
either objected, or did not consent TO the fixing
OF fair rents for these holders.
Mr. Balfour opposed Mr. Healys amendment
on the ground that under the guise of revision it
would by the application of Clause of the land
act. suggested, give practical Derpetuity OF
tenure to those not necessarily inhabitants oil
the adjacent town, thus injuring the towns in
Sir William Vernon -Harcourt said that the
government was evidently being driven from pil-
lar to post. They had abandoned one argument
after another. The last argument was the weak
est of all.
Mr.. Smith said that the amendment was
mere revival in another form, OF the question
just settled. He thereupon moved cloture I'M
der which motion the amendment was negatived
PIP to l66.
On motion of Mr. Balfour, three of the House
of Lords amendments were rejected.
Mr.. Gibson Attorney general for Ireland.
moved that the House confirm Earl Cadogans
amendment, which provides that the revision Of
rents be based upon the difference of prices in
1887 as compared with prices from 1881 to 1885.
Mr.. Parnell said it obviously too late to
discuss SO important question. Inc amend.
its value. Rather than accept such an illusory
concession to tenants he would prefer that the
bill be dropped altogether. The governments
in the face of their own declarations
and the report of the Cowper commission. The
government
adopt the proposal in ths House of Lords by the
fact that certain Unionists had left town, giving
them free hand in the House of Commons.
sh. eonaas was the haa hin They
they liked, and leave the tenants
to fight the matter themselves. The tenants
would not get the worst Of it, because they were
certain to get better bill within a year. Hd
warned the government that their bill would
break down. Tenants were disappointed in Par
lament and would look to other methods OF re-
iIa aI1rr fhA
We're. IN the long run, the only arguments Par
lament ever recognized. The government had
proved this repeatedly He hoped this would be
the last occasion they would ever have power to
afford such proof.
Mr.. Balfour characterized Mr.. Parnell's refec-
tions upon the governments motives as un-
worthy OF the leader of any party He said that
the bill had got into such position that they
must either drop it entirely agree to the Cado-
gan amendment In addition to other benefits,
even Mr.. Parnell admitted that the amendments
would afford some reduction; and yet, processing
TO speak in tenants interests, he pretended that
hs would look with eauauimity upon the with
0sawal of the bill. thus laying himself open to
the aa-kest suspicious. His language would af-
ford thos9 anxious to promote disorder Ire-
land the str. ugest justification for their action.
L. w. Russell regretted that section of the
Unionists supported the government in what he
described as a dear nights work"
Mr. Healy contended that tine debate ought
to be adjourned He said that they hsd
understood that the government would
disagree with the Lords amendments, and
therefore they had no amendments pre-
pared. He believed this would be one
of the worst years since 1S47 for the Irish ;en-
ant farmer, and under these circumstances ha
would vote for the rejection of the bill He
hoped the debate would be adjourned.
Mr. Smith said there had been six days in
which the amendments could have been consid-
cred He refused to consent to the acjourn-
ment of the debate or 10 ask the house to imme-
diaiely dispose of the House of Lords, amend
ment. Mr.. Smith moved cloture. which was
carried. 224 to 155- The Cadogaa amendment
was adopted 215 to 16l